The ZIMBABWE Situation
An extensive and up-to-date website containing news, views and links related to ZIMBABWE - a country in crisis
Please note: You need to have 'Active content' enabled in your IE browser in order to see the index of articles on this webpage
Mugabe Has No Intention Of Sharing Power
Wall Street Journal
August 20, 2008; Page A17
Negotiations held under the
auspices of the Southern African Development
Community have thus failed to
achieve a "power-sharing" agreement between
Zimbabwean dictator Robert
Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
According to some reports,
the proposed accord, drafted by South African
President Thabo Mbeki, would
split executive powers between Mugabe and Mr.
Tsvangirai, grant immunity to
regime officials guilty of human-rights
abuses, and give control over the
military and Reserve Bank to Mugabe's
Some in the West
might welcome such an accord as a reprieve from months of
history shows that sharing power just isn't something Mugabe
Following his March 29 defeat to Mr. Tsvangirai's Movement for
Change (MDC), Mugabe unleashed the full force of the state
opponents, killing over 100 people and torturing and displacing
In June, he suspended outside humanitarian aid to his starving
Later that month, he held a sham "runoff election" in which Mr.
refused to compete. Fearful for his life, the opposition leader
spent a week
holed up in the Dutch Embassy. Abandoned by African heads of
state and the
West, he had little choice but to enter
It should never have come to this. This sorry situation is
the fruit of the
international community's abandonment of Zimbabwe's
The events of the past few months echo those of
nearly 30 years ago, when
Zimbabwe was a rebellious British colony called
Rhodesia. In April 1979,
three million blacks (64% of the native population)
voted in the country's
first multiracial election in hopes of putting an end
to its brutal civil
war between the white-led government and black
liberation groups. After five
days of balloting, the black Methodist bishop
Abel Muzorewa was duly elected
prime minister of the newfangled
Under the plan agreed to by the white government and
moderate black leaders,
whites would get 28 out of 100 parliamentary seats
and retain control over
some government agencies for 10 years. This was
hardly a perfect compromise,
but Zimbabwe-Rhodesia's "internal settlement"
offered the best opportunity
to end white supremacy and establish
Mugabe, the Chinese-funded, Marxist-Leninist
guerilla leader, threatened to
kill anyone who participated in that
election. Militias led by him and
Joshua Nkomo of the Zimbabwe African
People's Union killed 10 people. While
he claimed that the "internal
settlement" was a "bourgeois" swindle, Mugabe
really wanted to rule the
country by force.
In solidarity with Mugabe and Nkomo, the administration
of President Jimmy
Carter refused to send election observers. Two weeks
after Mr. Muzorewa was
elected, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a
resolution calling for the
administration to lift sanctions on
Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, which President
Today, the world
is once again allowing Mugabe to get away with murder.
After Zimbabwe's most
recent electoral sham, there was the requisite outcry
"international community." But when Great Britain and the U.S.
tried to push
relatively tame sanctions through the U.N. Security Council
last month, the
measure was vetoed by Russia and China.
As for Mr. Mbeki's proposed
"power-sharing" scheme, we've read this story
before. Not long after taking
power nearly 30 years ago, Mugabe jailed Mr.
Muzorewa on trumped up charges
of treason. In 1984, he deployed North
Korean-trained troops to kill 20,000
members of his erstwhile comrade
Nkomo's minority Ndbele tribe. Four years
later he shut down Nkomo's ZAPU
and transformed Zimbabwe into a one-party
We can't let this kind of thing happen again. The West must
continue to make
any future nonhumanitarian aid to Zimbabwe contingent upon
of the March election, the end of Mugabe's control over the
military, and the full restoration of the rule of law and
human rights. The
U.S. can bypass Mr. Mbeki and work with true allies of
like Botswana and Zambia to help end Mugabe's rule. Mr.
officially welcome Mr. Tsvanigirai in a Rose Garden ceremony as
elected president of Zimbabwe, and recognize his MDC as a
Mugabe and his generals have no interest in
"sharing" power, never mind
giving it up. Any agreement that gives
significant political control to
Mugabe would betray all the Zimbabweans who
risked their lives for
Mr. Kirchick, who has reported from
Zimbabwe, is an assistant editor of The
Recall of parliament threatens Zimbabwe talks
ruling Zanu-PF party raised the pressure on the opposition
Democratic Change, announcing that it would convene parliament
potentially heralding the final breakdown of their negotiations.
Sebastien Berger Southern Africa Correspondent
Last Updated: 11:25PM BST 19
The calling of the legislature, elected on March 29, has been on
pending the outcome of talks between the two sides. With the
deadlocked on their relative powers in a proposed government of
unity, Robert Mugabe's move could see the process ending without a
"The swearing in would take place on Monday or
Tuesday to enable new
legislators to execute [the] mandate they were given
by the people," Austin
Zvoma, a parliamentary clerk, told state
Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding governing
negotiations, neither side is supposed to "take any decisions or
that have a bearing on the agenda save by consensus [including] the
convening of parliament or the formation of a new government".
MDC said last night it did not object to calling parliament, but under
constitution a cabinet is supposed to be formed once the legislature is
"If he goes further and appoints a cabinet, it will be
against the letter
and spirit of the MOU," said a party spokesman, Tapiwa
Mr Tsvangirai's party has 100 seats in the lower house,
Zanu-PF 99, and a
smaller MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara holds the
balance of power with
10 seats. There is one independent.
Zimbabwe's existing power framework, the presidency is in a position
Mugabe 'working behind scenes' to outflank MDC
20 August 2008
ZIMBABWEAN President Robert Mugabe is
trying to cut a political
deal with opposition MPs behind the scenes while
his rival Morgan Tsvangirai
is mustering support in the region to pressure
him to accept a power-sharing
to wrest power is being plotted under the guise of
convening a new
parliament and could further jeopardise negotiations for a
which have already stalled.
President Thabo Mbeki is expected
to travel to Harare sometime
this week to try to break the negotiations
Sources said Mugabe lobbied Southern African
Community (SADC) leaders at the weekend to allow him to convene
without violating the memorandum of understanding between Zanu
(PF) and the
two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) factions which set out
parameters for negotiations.
The memorandum says
parliament should not sit while the
SADC leaders said in their communique that Zimbabwe
convene its parliament while the talks are
The MDC led by Tsvangirai objected to this,
saying it would
undermine the talks.
the MDC said it was not opposed to the
opening of parliament, but would
reject any attempt by Mugabe to appoint a
cabinet before an agreement was
Sources said Tsvangirai's faction fears that Mugabe
is trying to
make secret deals with enough MPs to give him the 106 majority
form a new government.
Zanu (PF) won 99 seats,
the main MDC 100 and the MDC faction led
by Arthur Mutambara, 10
A new parliament would be convened next week, clerk of
parliament Austin Zvoma confirmed
The new parliament would be
convened amid criticism that Mugabe's
position is not only illegitimate but
may also be unconstitutional.
Constitutional lawyer Lovemore
Madhuku said last night Mugabe's
presidency might be
"The constitution says the terms of the president
parliament should commence concurrently. Mugabe was sworn in on June
parliament has not yet convened."
It can be argued
that Mugabe's continued hold on office is
against this provision in the
constitution and may be unlawful.
A group of lawyers said the
government's current legal status
constitution stipulates that the country should not be
parliament for more than 180 days.
"We are well past
Mugabe dissolved parliament on January 24 ahead of the
The lawyers said the memorandum of
understanding which says
parliament should not convene while talks are on
"is merely a contract
between political parties and it cannot override the
Mugabe is believed to be targeting MPs to join
mainly from the faction led by Mutambara.
Tsvangirai's faction said Mugabe had been trying to entice MPs
offers of ministerial posts and other promises.
succeeds, it will further worsen the economic
situation with no promise of
assistance to rebuild the decimated economy.
government said inflation had surged to 11200000%
But independent economist John Robertson said real
Onus is on SADC to dump Mugabe and save a nation
20 August 2008
WHILE everyone is surely anxious to see the Zimbabwe
negotiations succeed in
bringing relief to the long-suffering people of that
country, it is
nonetheless galling that the process should be taking place
at all. For it
is sending a terrible message to tyrants everywhere.
is telling them that when you face defeat in an election, the
thing to do is
to launch mayhem in your country, beating and butchering and
your own people until horrified peacekeepers come hurrying to
the scene to
stop the carnage and you can then negotiate a continuing role
in the power structure.
It is a form of blackmail. The
moral equivalent of the
hostage-taker who threatens to go on shooting his
hostages unless his
demands are met.
The sane world
always faces a dilemma in such situations. To
yield to the hostage-taker's
demands is to encourage their replication, and
so there has been a growing
reluctance to do so and the painful decision has
been taken to leave
hostages to their fate. But when whole communities are
involved it is a
quantitatively different matter.
Still, I believe the
Southern African Development Community
(SADC) and the African Union (AU)
could be doing better in the case of
hostage-taker Robert Mugabe. As this
column has noted repeatedly for more
than a year, those two bodies are
committed by their own charters not to
recognise any regime that takes power
by unconstitutional means. So they
should have warned Mugabe in advance that
if he rigged this year's election
again, as he did in 2002 and 2005, they
would not recognise his government.
It would be an illegitimate regime and
Zimbabwe would be suspended from both
That, I believe, would have stopped him. Mugabe
may thumb his
nose at Britain and the US, but he would not dare do so at the
Indeed, SADC should be acting in that
way right now. Instead of
trying to negotiate a power-sharing deal, they
should be telling Mugabe
collectively and bluntly that he lost the March 29
election, that he
extended the run-off illegally, that his campaign of
intimidation was unacceptable, and that he cannot therefore be
head of the Zimbabwe government.
should tell him he must step down, and that if he does not
step down SADC
will withdraw all support from him and his government. He
will be isolated
on his own continent.
Sadly, President Thabo Mbeki, as
SADC's appointed negotiator,
has not had the strength of character to do
that. He is in awe of Mugabe's
reputation as a liberation icon, and perhaps
in fear of being denounced as a
tool of the west, which is Mugabe's
stock-in-trade response to his African
so the timidity has become pervasive. Nobody has been
prepared to stand up
to the old tyrant except Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia, who
died yesterday in
France (though he had been sedated following a stroke, he
still managed to
send a message of admonition to the leaders in Sandton) and
new president, Ian Khama, who boycotted the meeting to
protest at Mugabe's
presence there as Zimbabwe's unelected president.
some of our media and professorial analysts seem stricken
by obtuseness. The
other day I heard an SABC commentator say, as the SADC
leaders headed for
Sandton, that "the ball is now in (Morgan) Tsvangirai's
How preposterous! Here is a man who has been
robbed of an
election victory, had his organisation smashed and his
tortured and killed, being told that the onus is on him
to make concessions
so that peace can be restored.
The point is that Mugabe's insistence that he be the head of the
"power-sharing" government, with the power to appoint - and thus
dismiss - members of that government, including Tsvangirai as prime
minister, is so obviously unacceptable to Tsvangirai that I cannot
understand why it was not instantly dismissed as a negotiating
Tsvangirai is not a fool. He and everybody else
Africa know how Mugabe swallowed up Joshua Nkomo and his Zapu
a trace in what purported to be a power-sharing deal in the
1980s. It is as
plain as a pikestaff that this is what Mugabe is trying to
Tsvangirai now - and that Tsvangirai would be crazy to fall for
Yet we keep getting reports saying there is only one
remaining in the negotiations - even though that obstacle is the
The problem with SADC is that too
many of its leaders have too
much in common with Mugabe. They are imbued
with the notion that their
parties of liberation have a historic right to
rule indefinitely; that as
"vanguard parties" only they have the wisdom and
ideological insight to
chart the course of the unending "national democratic
revolution". They form
a kind of freemasonry that closes ranks with fellow
members of that
self-righteous but shrinking club.
One can imagine, for example, that Jose Eduardo dos Santos, who
president of Angola for 29 years, feels somewhat reluctant to tell
that after 28 years it is past time for him to go.
AU, too, has some less than enthusiastic champions of free
elections. There is Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled for 27
habitually locks up his opposition at election time and appears
now to be
preparing to hand over to his son, Gamal. And of course Muammar
has held power in Libya for 39 years and counting.
needs to happen is for the SADC leaders to cast off their
with the egotistical needs of one stubborn old man and
focus instead on the
increasingly desperate needs of the Zimbabwean people.
Zimbabwe's economy is disintegrating. The currency is devaluing
at the rate
of 1000% a week. Inflation is reckoned to be in the vicinity of
percent. Which means that the money is worthless. It can't buy
in any case there is nothing in the shops to buy. The maize
crop this year
is one-third of what is needed to feed the nation with its
The people are facing starvation. A human
looming. Africa itself does not have the resources to save
the 10-million or
so people still left in Zimbabwe. Only the western donor
countries can do
that. They have pledged $4bn over two years, which is about
gross domestic product, to kick-start a
But the donor countries won't give the aid if
head of the government. Which is understandable, because he
wealth of what was once a prosperous country and would surely
do so again to
keep his cronies happy while the ordinary people continue to
In any case, how can any donor
country justify asking its
taxpayers to bale out a tyrant and subsidise an
No, the onus is on the SADC leaders
to do the right thing. They
must tell Mugabe to go, now, so that the people
of Zimbabwe can start living
* Sparks is a former
editor of the Rand Daily Mail and a veteran
ZANU PF is
stumbling block to talks: Tsvangirai
INTERVIEW: A weekend Southern African
Development Community (SADC) summit in South Africa failed to broker a deal to
end the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe despite spirited efforts by
regional leaders to get the negotiating parties in Zimbabwe to close
ranks. Basildon Peta caught up with two of the key negotiating parties soon
after the summit ended.
Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader
of the larger formation of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC),
who has refused to sign a deal currently on the table, explains in detail why a
QUESTION: There were a lot of expectations
that a deal would be signed by the end of the SADC summit on Sunday. That did
not happen and it seems we are back to square one. Why?
ANSWER: Well, we have not made much
progress because the expectation was that President Mbeki would use the
collective leadership wisdom of SADC to bring the parties to some form of an
agreement. Now it would appear that on the other outstanding issues, we are
still as far apart as at the beginning. The only fortunate thing is that both
parties realise that they cannot walk away from the negotiations.
Q: What are these issues that still
hold this dialogue back?
A: The real differences arise
out of the roles and powers of the two critical positions in this proposed
government, which is the powers of the president and powers of the prime
minister, especially in terms of authority, in terms of who is responsible for
Q: There is a view that you are
overplaying your hand in these negotiations since you did not win an absolute
majority in Parliament on March 29 to justify claiming complete executive power.
Only one seat separates you from ZANU PF minus the 10 seats that Arthur
Mutambara’s faction holds?
A: We are not claiming complete
executive power. We are talking about shared executive power. Anyone who claims
that we are overplaying our hand doesn’t understand the mandate given to us by
the people on 29 March. The thing that is fundamental is that the people of
Zimbabwe spoke. Fifty-seven percent of the people who voted said they no longer
had any confidence in Mugabe. If you then consider the events of June 27 (the
run off election) which was not accepted by anyone, then you can ask where
Mugabe derives his legitimacy. It’s ZANU PF which is therefore overplaying its
hand. He (Mugabe) can only get legitimacy by saying that he is the caretaker
president until another election is held. That’s why there is need for a
transition. That’s why Mugabe cannot continue to enjoy the same powers he had
Q: We understand that SADC tabled a
last minute compromise deal that you and Mugabe rejected. Can you let us in on
A: No SADC proposal was given to
us. All we were told is that we have to be part of the process in order to
influence the process without specifically defining how that process is going to
work in real terms. And that is the difficulty we have got.
Q: Who is the stumbling block in
this whole process?
A: From what we see and when you
analyse the powers of the president and the prime minister, and you see that
there is no shared responsibility and authority, you then have to say it’s ZANU
PF who is the stumbling block.
Q: But ZANU PF says you are the
A: Let them demonstrate what powers
they have ceded to the prime minister or to the other party. Identify those
areas and you will easily see who is the stumbling block.
Q: The deal on the table that you
refused to sign stipulates that executive power will reside in the president,
prime minister and cabinet. It’s an all-encompassing arrangement . . . which
ZANU PF says will foster collective responsibility rather than try to make a
distinction between president and PM?
A: There is no such thing as
collective executive authority. Somebody is responsible. Why are they afraid of
pinpointing that you (Mugabe) is responsible as head of state for these
functions and you (Tsvangirai) is responsible for government with these
functions. Why are they afraid to do that? That demarcation of responsibility is
very important for accountability purposes, for authority purposes. You cannot
expect the MDC to be tasked with turning around the mess in Zimbabwe without
being given authority. Does that make sense?
Q: Your stance is that the prime
minister should chair Cabinet, appoint Cabinet ministers, and generally be in
charge of running Cabinet. Do you foresee yourself compromising and negotiating
A: That is our fundamental
position. It’s very very fundamental and non-negotiable. It would be
unprecedented to have a president with a ceremonial prime minister . . . We have
said to them we don’t want to have a ceremonial president. But we also don’t
want to have a ceremonial prime minister?
Q: If ZANU PF thinks that they
have given much power to the position of prime minister, why don’t you tell them
to have that position and your party assumes the presidency?
A: We told SADC that. We said let’s
swap roles. If they don’t want to concede the facts, we said the other solution
is for them to take the prime minister’s role and we take the
Q: And what did SADC
A: I don’t think they said anything
Q: And what about
A: I don’t know what his response
is to that?
Q: There is also a view that
progress is stalled because the style of President Mbeki’s mediation, deemed by
some to be pro-Mugabe, is part of the problem?
A: I am in the negotiations as one
of the parties and it would be improper to start besmirching the mediation
Q: Another view is that you haven’t
adequately reached out to Arthur Mutambara’s faction of the MDC which is now
allegedly siding with ZANU PF in the talks to your disadvantage?
A: It’s in the public domain that
we announced to the whole world that we have a coalition agreement. So what kind
of reaching out is needed, other than to observe the conditions of that
coalition agreement. If the Mutambara group have decided to align with ZANU PF,
that’s their choice. But they must also know that in terms of that coalition
agreement, there is a breach.
Q: Are you speaking as one with
Mutambara in the negotiations. At his Press conference last week, he said you
ought to put Zimbabwe first, implying that he disagrees with your
A: I thought we were all playing in
the same court . . . But it would appear that that is not the case. They (the
Mutambara faction) have other views. And I think we need to revisit the
coalition agreement and ask them whether we are still together insofar as these
negotiations are concerned.
Q: SADC has said Parliament can now
be reconvened. What effect will this have on the negotiations in view of the
fact that the MOU had said convening of Parliament and appointment of Cabinet
ought to be delayed until the negotiations are completed?
A: It will have no effect. As far
as we are concerned we don’t see anything wrong with that. Let Parliament be
Q: What about Cabinet?
A: Parliament is the expression of
the will of the people. Cabinet is another thing. Convening Parliament does not
necessarily mean that a Cabinet should be appointed. If Parliament is being
reconvened to deal with this dispute, then let it deal with the dispute. But
that does not mean Mugabe unilaterally goes to form a government and have
Cabinet ministers. If that is the intention, then it will be a breach of the
Q: So where do things stand now.
When are these negotiations resuming and where and for how long?
A: I am not the mediator. That is
the responsibility of President Mbeki, the mediator, to manage. We have not
heard anything from him as yet.
Q: What happens if this deadlock
remains. It looks like Mugabe is not going to budge and you will not
A: Leadership is no just about
compromise, it’s also about principle and about the people. It’s not about an
elite pact or position sharing. It’s about people’s expectations. The people’s
expectations are clear. They want a democratic government to take them out of
this crisis caused by mismanagement. Achieving such a government will remain our
Q: ZANU PF keeps on alleging that a
deal with you remains difficult because you are reporting and taking
instructions from Britain and the United States who have said they will not fund
any government in which Mugabe remains powerful?
A: Well I am sure that you know the
ZANU PF rhetoric, and line and lies. They always say that the MDC does not think
for itself. We are even being accused that the position papers we are presenting
are being written by the British and the Americans. It’s very unfortunate. They
continue with this paranoia of a conspiracy. But if they were honest, they would
go out and try to find out what are the people’s expectations. If they can build
confidence in us, we will build confidence in them. That’s the only way to move
Q: What’s next if nothing is
resolved in Mbeki’s mediation.
A: This is a conflict of emotions
and not principals. The sooner ZANU PF realises that they have no monopoly in
determining the future of the country and that they have to accommodate MDC as
partner and not as an enemy, the better.
Q: What is your Plan B if the
A: Ah! We can’t start discussing
plan Bs, plan Cs, plan Ds, and plan Es . . .
Q: One of the army commanders is
said to have told a meeting of the Joint Operations Command (JOC) that the only
way to get the MDC to agree to a deal is to kill you. Are you
A: Well they have all the guns, and
I can’t prevent them from planning to eliminate me. But if they succeed, they
would have my blood on their hands. –
What is on
offer now is what is practicable: Ncube
INTERVIEW: In our quest to seek a
comprehensive understanding of why the Zimbabwe dialogue remains deadlocked,
Basildon Peta also interviewed Professor Welshman Ncube, the chief negotiator in
the Arthur Mutambara faction of the MDC, who expressed contrary views to those
held by Tsvangirai.
QUESTION: A deal to resolve the Zimbabwe
crisis remains elusive despite President Thabo Mbeki and SADC’s spirited
ANSWER: It is elusive because it has
been impossible to get all the three parties at the negotiating table to agree
on essentially what this deal is about. If you take into account the positions
as they stand now, it boils down to one thing in our view; Do you have a power
sharing deal or do you have a power transfer deal. In our view the deal which is
on the table now, which the SADC leaders spent long hours discussing with us –
is essentially a power sharing deal. Regrettably, some of the parties (the
Tsvangirai formation) did not find that deal adequate because they desired a
power transfer deal.
Q: The Tsvangirai formation argues
that the deal on the table will leave Mugabe’s powers intact and relegate
Tsvangirai to a ceremonial prime minister’s role. Many agree that it is simply
unreasonable to expect Tsvangirai to play a junior role in a Mugabe government
when he beat him in the March 29 elections.
A: The SADC communiqué says the
deal on the table is what is an appropriate, fair and equitable power sharing
deal. And this is what the SADC leaders were trying to persuade all of us to
accept. Regrettably some of us (Tsvangirai formation) did not accept it. But in
our view we can say that the SADC resolution is a fair reflection of the facts
on the ground . . . The executive function is the function of running
government, of appointing and supervising ministers, of determining the day to
day operations of government, of defining policy. If you exclude the leader of
one of the parties from that completely, you are rendering whomsoever you have
excluded ceremonial. That is why SADC found that the demands which are on the
table (from Tsvangirai) are for a power transfer. And they were unable to
endorse those. Which is why they endorsed what is on the table which is power
sharing. I cannot go beyond that and I cannot go on a finger pointing
expedition. But I go by the resolution of SADC which is essentially that what we
have is a power sharing deal. Anything else is a power transfer.
I can go further and say that if
you go by the results of 29 March, no single party can argue for transfer of
power to itself because no single party has the absolute majority to say we are
entitled to have power transferred to us. Consider the figures, ZANU PF has 99,
MDC-T 100 and we have 10. For anyone to say that power ought to be transferred
to themselves alone, they ought to have 106 seats in the House of Assembly. No
one has that. The fact that you might have the highest number, does not entitle
you to a transfer. You still need one of the other parties to stand in your
corner before you can command 106 seats. MDC-T does not have the absolute
majority to claim transfer of power to itself without sharing it with one or
other of the parties.
Q: But their argument is that they
formed a coalition with you. And that your coalition commands a comfortable
majority of 110 seats.
A: Nobody can negotiate for us. We
negotiate for ourselves. We are an independent political party. In the elections
we contested against ZANU PF, we contested against MDC-T. We got the seats we
got and we own those seats, and our role is to ensure that we play a
constructive role. Our role is to ensure that we speak for the people who voted
for us against MDC-T and against ZANU PF. So we cannot and we will not annex our
votes to anyone. So we cannot agree with positions, we don’t believe are right.
We have not done that. We will not do that. What was done by the leadership of
the MDC . . . was to back MDC-T in the run-off. But the run-off was terminated
prematurely when ZANU PF unleashed violence on the people. As things stand now,
each of the MDC parties are independent of each other. Anyone who wants to work
with any other will have to approach the other and have a deal. As of now, there
is no deal with anyone. The discussions which took place between the two
elections were founded on the fact that Morgan had won the 29 March election and
would win the 27 June elections. That did not happen and therefore what was
agreed then does not constitute a coalition.
Q: Don’t you think that the MDC
would have been much more effective if they were speaking with one voice in
these negotiations? The view in the world is that MDC-Mutambara has thrown its
lot with ZANU PF and is siding with Mugabe?
A: We have no desire to finger
point. We have conducted the dialogue with absolute integrity . . . The position
we have on the table now is the deal we negotiated in the pre-planning stages
and agreed on it with MDC-T . . . When we strategised together and when we
planned together at the commencement of these negotiations, we targeted this
deal. And now we have got it. We have no desire to finger point.
Q: Is MDC–T therefore overplaying
A: Let them answer and determine
that. Let me say that when we started this dialogue, we had three positions. The
one we felt would favour the MDC most was the one that would make Mugabe a
ceremonial president and effectively achieve a power transfer. But we considered
the extent to which ZANU PF went by blood, by stealth to get the presidency the
manner it did. It was unlikely to agree to a power transfer by rendering Mugabe
a ceremonial president. We said that would be the best deal if we can achieve
it. But it’s unlikely for obvious reasons. We then said the other extreme
position would be for ZANU PF to say they have the presidency. They say we are
inviting all of you to a government of national unity led by us (ZANU PF).
Pretty much like the 1987 unity government whereby the ZANU PF government was
the leading partner in any coalition arrangement. We rejected this collectively
because it would not be power sharing. The Third model which was in between
these two, we categorised it as the Kenyan model. Which is where an executive
president has executive power and an executive prime minister has executive
power and they have to share this power and they have to make decisions as
between themselves. Some of them by consensus so that no one feels that they
have been booted out of holding executive authority. We thus aimed for the
Kenyan model and achieved that model. We even achieved more powers for the prime
minister than what Raila Odinga has. Which is why SADC heads of state, 15 of
them, have agreed with that and hence their strong opinion as reflected in the
communiqué. We stand by that position. We have been vindicated by the SADC
position. If you want transfer of power, it will not happen because you need a
period of transition during which each party will feel they have a stake in what
is going on.
Q: But there are not necessarily 15
heads of state because Botswana has disagreed with that position and its leader
boycotted the summit.
A: I don’t want to disclose to you
what was happening in the meetings we had but I can assure you that Botswana was
represented in those meetings with the leaders. Botswana was there and was
having positions that were consistent with the rest of SADC. That I can assure
Q: So you are basically happy with
this deal which Tsvangirai has rejected?
A: It’s not a question of
happiness. It’s a question of what is practicable and what is possible in the
circumstances. In our view what is on the table now is what is practicable under
Q: Tsvangirai specifically wants to
chair and run Cabinet but Mugabe doesn’t. Would you urge Tsvangirai to drop that
position for the sake of progress?
A: Look at the documents which were
initially agreed buy all the parties before others withdrew their agreement. In
terms of those agreements, the president chairs Cabinet, the prime minister is
the deputy chair. That was the compromise which was reached. All three parties
were at one point in agreement with that position. SADC has endorsed that as a
basis for moving forward.
Q: But Tsvangirai would never had
an opportunity to chair Cabinet as Mugabe’s two deputies would have acted in the
president’s seat whenever Mugabe is not available?
A: That’s a re-interpretation of
issues. The agreement that is there says there is a chairman and a deputy
chairman of cabinet. In the absence of the substantive chairman, the deputy
acts. At the negotiating table the argument you now raise was never put
Q: But on March 29, 57 percent of
Zimbabweans rejected Mugabe. Why should Tsvangirai therefore not claim executive
power and the right to chair and run Cabinet?
A: You can’t remake the rules after
the game. The game was that you had more than two players. One of the players
had to get 50 + 1 percent for power to move to him. That did not happen . .
Q: Is Tsvangirai therefore being
A: Again it’s not for me to decide
whether anyone is being unreasonable or not. If you are a party to the
negotiations you must be satisfied with what is on the table for you to sign up.
I cannot question anyone’s right to decide not to sign. Any of the parties has
an absolute right to say no.
Q: But the implication of what you
are saying is that Tsvangirai is being unreasonable and ZANU PF and your side
are the right guys?
A: No I have not said anything
about ZANU PF in everything I have said to you so far. I have spoken about our
position. I dare not speak for ZANU PF. I cannot speak for ZANU PF . . . All I
am saying is that our view is consistent with the SADC resolution. It is our
view that the deal on the table forms the basis of moving forward. But we
recognise the right of any party to be unhappy and to seek more. The only
question is whether those with the power to give more are willing to give
Q: What is the implication of
reconvening Parliament as urged by SADC considering that the MOU had called for
a delay until negotiations are completed?
A: The implication is that SADC is
saying, despite the MOU stipulation that Parliament cannot be re-convened before
this process has come to an end, as far as they (SADC) are concerned, everything
has been done to build an agreement. A time has therefore come to say you cannot
continue to say there is a vacuum in government. It is their view that the
government of the day should proceed to convene Parliament. They have therefore
effectively amended the MOU by saying that after all that has been done thus
far, a vacuum in the Zimbabwe government cannot be left to continue. They (SADC)
are therefore saying they cannot stop ZANU PF from convening Parliament if it’s
inclined to do so.
Q: Where do we go from
A: Frankly I don’t know. It’s up to
the facilitator and to SADC. They have not communicated to us as to what they
intend to do in this respect. We will await their guidance.
Q: Why do you have to wait for
them. As Zimbabweams why not initiate your contacts?
A: Of course that is possible if
all the parties are willing. But if you want to talk under the facilitator, you
have to wait to hear from him.
Q: What about the reported threat
by your MPs to walk out if you remain aligned to Mugabe in these
A: We have no positions that are
aligned to Mugabe. We have our positions which are in line with what our
national council has decided on the issues. I do not believe there is any of our
MPs who hold the positions that are different from those of the national council
If there is, I will be surprised.
Q: What about the facilitation
A: A facilitator is a facilitator.
He can help the parties but he cannot decide for them.
Q: If deadlock remains, and if all
fails what’s next?
A: If all fails then we are back to
the to the trenches. – ZimOnline
Zim inflation shoots to new world record
by Nokuthula Sibanda
Wednesday 20 August 2008
HARARE - Zimbabwe's annual inflation
shot to 11.2 million percent in June, a
new world record and an emphatic
signal that President Robert Mugabe's
government was losing the race against
time to save the hemorrhaging economy
from total collapse.
year-on-year inflation rate (annual percentage change) for the month of
2008 as measured by the all items Consumer Price Index (CPI) stood at
758.9 percent, gaining 9 035 045.5 percentage points on the May 2008
2 233 713.4 percent, " the state's Central Statistical Office said
"This means that prices as measured by the all items CPI
increased by an
average of 11 268 758.9 percent between June 2007 and June
2008," added the
CSO that has in recent months shown reluctance to divulge
apparently to avoid exposing Mugabe's
Inflation - which most economists believe is much higher than
the CSO cares
to admit - is the most visible sign of a deep recession that
has left the
majority of the 12 million Zimbabweans mired in poverty as
rockets amid shortages of food, hard cash and every basic
Critics blame the crisis on repression and wrong
policies by Mugabe who has
ruled Zimbabwe since the once prosperous southern
African country's 1980
independence from Britain.
But Mugabe, who has
refused to cede power to opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai in a deal that
could unlock foreign aid vital to economic
recovery, denies hat his policies
are to blame for Zimbabwe's meltdown and
instead says he is being sabotaged
by Western governments opposed to his
rule. - ZimOnline
Mwanawasa: President of Zambia who fought against corruption and was a
fierce and vocal critic of Robert Mugabe
Wednesday, 20 August
Levy Mwanawasa, President of Zambia since 2002, was part of
a new generation
of African leaders whose formative years were not spent
liberation. Zambia won independence from Britain in 1964 when
just 15, and his early career was instead taken up with the
It was this background that led Mwanawasa
to become such a fierce critic of
the Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.
Where Thabo Mbeki of South Africa
and José Eduardo dos Santos of Angola saw
a fellow liberation leader under
attack from the West, Mwanawasa saw an
ailing demagogue whose freefalling
economy was having a devastating effect
on the region.
In 2007, alarmed at the number of refugees pouring across
the border into
Zambia, Mwanawasa likened Zimbabwe to the "sinking Titanic
are jumping out". He used his position as chairman of the
body, the Southern African Development Community (SADC),
Zimbabwe's flawed presidential elections in 2008.
African Union summit in June at the Egyptian resort of Sharm
which followed Mugabe's controversial re-election, Mwanawasa had
expected to urge his fellow leaders to condemn the poll. But on the day
before the summit began, Mwanawasa suffered a serious stroke, and was flown
to a hospital in Paris. The African heads of state failed to speak out
publicly, and the recent attempt by Mbeki to broker a power-sharing
settlement between Mugabe and his rival Morgan Tsvangirai has now collapsed.
Botswana followed Mwanawasa's lead this month by boycotting a meeting of
regional leaders in protest at Mugabe's presence.
Levy Mwanawasa was
born in 1948, in Mufulira, a town in the northern
copperbelt of what was
then Northern Rhodesia. He studied law at the
University of Zambia and by
the age of 30 had established his own law firm,
Mwanawasa and Company. He
quickly carved out a reputation for taking on
difficult cases, particularly
those which challenged the government. It
wasn't easy. Independence had not
brought democracy to Zambia. Kenneth
Kaunda, the country's first president,
resisted all attempts to hold
multi-party elections, and took a dim view of
those who threatened his rule.
In 1989 Mwanawasa took on his most
high-profile, and politically dangerous,
case. A team of politicians and
military officers, including the former
vice-president Lt-Gen Christian
Tembo, were charged with attempting to
successful defence catapulted him into a position of national
The following year, with Kaunda finally giving in to local and
pressure to hold multi-party elections, Mwanawasa was touted
as a possible
presidential candidate. He declined, citing his age, 41, and
While Mwanawasa had won plaudits during the 1980s he had
also gained some
powerful enemies. When he was involved in a serious car
crash in 1991, some
suggested that he may have been the victim of a
political plot, allegations
which were never substantiated. The incident
left Mwanawasa with serious
injuries - he spent three months recovering in a
The man eventually chosen by the opposition
Movement for Multi-party
Democracy (MMD) party to stand for the presidency
was Frederick Chiluba, a
flamboyant and smartly dressed trade unionist.
Chiluba won the 1991 election
and installed Mwanawasa as his vice-president.
But it wasn't long before
Mwanawasa's strong anti-corruption credentials
collided with the realities
of the new Zambian government. He lasted just
three years as vice-president,
resigning after accusing some of his
colleagues of corruption.
His political ambitions remained undimmed
though, and he challenged Chiluba
for the leadership of the MMD in 1996. His
failed attempt established
Mwanawasa as the favourite to take over once
Chiluba reached his
constitutional limit of two presidential
However, Mwanawasa's election as president in 2001 was far from
Standing against 10 other candidates, he won 29 per cent of the
two points more than his closest opponent. Moreover, national and
international observers cited serious irregularities in the election
process, somewhat undermining Mwanawasa's record for
Nevertheless, in office Mwanawasa won support from the West
anti-corruption drive and his economic reforms. His biggest victim
predecessor and one-time mentor, Chiluba. The former president was
of corruption and charges were eventually brought against him in the
Court in London in July 2007.
Kick-starting the economy proved
much harder. At independence, Zambia's
copper wealth had given it the
potential to become one of Africa's richest
countries. It never happened -
the Zambia that Mwanawasa took over in
January 2002 was instead one of the
continent's poorest. But by the time he
ran for re-election in 2006 annual
growth was above five per cent. While the
macro-economic figures looked
impressive, the majority of Zambia's 11.5
million people still lived in
There were also growing concerns about the President's health.
slurred speech, a result of the 1991 car crash, had long been
about. In 2006, he suffered a minor stroke, months before he was
stand for re-election. He recovered, but his opponents claimed he was
fit enough to run the country.
Mwanawasa's main challenger in the
2006 election, Michael Sata, ran a
populist campaign, arguing that too few
Zambians were benefiting from
Mwanawasa's eceonomic policies. Sata had been
ahead in the opinion polls,
but Mwanawasa won again. When Sata claimed the
poll had been rigged
Mwanawasa threatened to charge him with
Although he was a favourite in the West for his stand against
his attempts to reform the economy, Mwanawasa could also be
he felt rich countries were letting Zambia down.
the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles, 18 countries, including Zambia, were
offered debt relief. They were also promised a doubling of aid by 2010. That
would have made an enormous difference in Zambia where foreign aid accounted
for $1bn - one third - of the annual budget.
Zambia used the debt
relief to make rural healthcare free. Poor families had
previously had to
scrape together 8,000 Zambian kwacha, the equivalent of
£1, to join the
country's healthcare scheme and another 50p every time they
needed to see a
doctor. When the fees were scrapped patient numbers rose
dramatically - by
as much as a third in some parts of the country. But the
new policy could
only be successful if Zambia could afford the additional
medicines and medical facilities needed to deal with the
The additional aid from the West never came. Mwanawasa was
furious, and his
ministers called it a betrayal. Mwanawasa had been
intending to remind the
leaders of the rich world of their promise at the G8
summit in Japan in July
but he never recovered from his stroke.
Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, politician: born Mufulira, Zambia 3
Vice-President of Zambia 1991-94, President 2002-08; twice
children); died Paris 19 August 2008.
are collectively foolish" --Mutambara
The Mole | published: 19 August,
In a display of the true mentality of Mutambara, in an interview,
called the interviewer foolish, asserting Aussies are
In a display of the ZANU-PF thinking that Mutambara has now
called Australians racist. In an interview, Mutambara attacks
Mutambara appears to be trying very hard to please ZANU-PF and
Mugabe, and in so doing he is allienating his erstwhile comrades both
and outside the MDC.
Judging by his tone, it won't surprise me
to hear that he has been named a
deputy president or even a prime minister
by Mugabe in the new cabinet that
he is preparing to announce later this
week ahead of the convening of
parliament early next week.
to think what this man would do if he is given power. Read excepts
interview below. The full transcript of the interview is included
bottom of the page.
Mutambara: "WHO are you? How
dare you undermine our intelligence? How dare
you, you are so racist to the
extent that you can't guarantee us, give us
the respect, the vote of
confidence that we can make our own decisions."
Geraldine Doogue: "Well,
Mutambara: "You are collectively stupid ..."
Mutambara: "... collective foolishness. We won't allow Australia
our agreement. It's none of your business."
Doogue: "Let me
bring up the issue of the ..."
Mutambara: "I haven't finished. Shame on
you for expressing no confidence in
Morgan Tsvangirai. Shame on you for
expressing no confidence in Mugabe.
Shame on you for expressing no
confidence in Mutambara. We will not brook
"Is it possible that you or Mr Tsvangirai could be walking into a
Joshua Nkomo did in the '80s, where it looked like a power-sharing
and in fact as you know ..."
Mutambara: I have a question. Do you think I
am stupid? When you ask that
question you think we are foolish and we are
very offended that you think we
are that stupid. We are smarter than the
Australians. We are smarter than
the Americans. We went to better schools
than most of these leaders in
America, in Britain and in Australia. I am
coming out of Oxford. None of
your prime ministers can challenge me
intellectually. So how do you
patronise me and tell me that I'm going to be
hoodwinked by Mugabe....
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of
occasional difficulty in identifying
Geraldine Doogue: My first guest on today's program is emerging
incredible week of a behind the scenes chess-plays and
horse-trading, all of
which have led to major talks that start today in
South Africa, and which
could determine the fate of Zimbabwe.
Mutambara, is the leader of the faction within the Movement for
Change that's led by Morgan Tsvangarai. Both men, plus Robert
South African president, Thabo Mbeke, are participating in talks
hope might culminate in some sort of National Unity government.
spoken to the ambitious Arthur Mutambara before and he's always
enlightening, highly, about his country's politics, way beyond the newspaper
headlines. The question is, is he acting at the moment as a noble
circuit-breaker in this long-running tragedy or more as an
I'm delighted that he could spare some time to talk to us at
the start of a
very busy weekend. Professor Mutambara, welcome back to
Arthur Mutambara: Thank you very much.
Doogue: I'm going to read you a rather difficult old summary that
I read in
The Guardian newspaper this week, which said that you were a
opportunist who has appeared to be currying favour with his
by parroting Mr Mugabe's anti-western rhetoric'. Now I take
it that you
fundamentally disagree with that summary?
Arthur Mutambara: Yes we do.
What we have stated, we did a press conference
on Wednesday and made it very
clear that this is a tripartite negotiations
framework. There cannot be a
bilateral agreement out of this framework.
Either all three principals agree
and we have a solution in our country, or
if one of them doesn't agree, then
there's no solution. So there's
absolutely no way that our party is going to
cut a deal with Mugabe to the
exclusion of Morgan Tsvangarai. So that must
be understood without
equivocation or ambiguity. We are in here because
Zimbabwe is going through
a humanitarian, economic and political crisis of
immense proportions and
we're driven by the national interest, we're driven
by the desires of the
people of Zimbabwe to move from poverty, from misery,
to a justiciable
environment in our country, and we are saying all the
leaders, all the three
political leaders must put national interest before
Geraldine Doogue: So can I ask you, why did so many papers
around the world
get this wrong then?
Arthur Mutambara: Because they
are very stupid, they are very stupid, it's
as simple as that. In the first
place, technically you can't have a
bilateral agreement from a three-party
negotiations framework. Secondly
because the negotiations are being held
with confidentiality so they didn't
have the information. And there is also
propaganda on the part of ZANU to
try to put pressure on Mr Tsvangarai by
saying to the world, 'If Mr
Tsvangarai doesn't agree, we're going to work
with Mr Mutambara, and we're
saying, No, no, no. And the foolish journalist
who has the nerve to believe
that Mr Mutambara can cut a deal with Mugabe in
this framework is sick in
Geraldine Doogue: Okay, that's a
good rebuttal. Did you agree to anything
that made the negotiations advance,
Arthur Mutambara: Okay. What we have done is that we've agreed on
issues, the three of us, Morgan Tsvangarai, Robert Mugabe and Mutambara.
We've agreed to everything, except one issue, and I'm not at liberty to
discuss that one issue, but I can say there's one issue which is outstanding
and Mr Tsvangarai has asked for time out to reflect and consult on that
matter. And we respect that because in any negotiations we must allow our
colleagues the opportunity to reflect and consult.
So you're not going to tell us what that is, I take it?
Yes. But I will say on that issue we as a party have no
problem with the
current position in the negotiations. And so that's where
we are in
agreement on that particular issue Mr Tsvangarai is on his own. I
emphasise I am not beholden to Mr Tsvangarai. I am not beholden to
Mugabe. I'm a separate political party, holding the balance of power
parliament, and will use that balance of power in the national
am not bound to agree with Tsvangarai all the time. When I
Morgan Tsvangarai I will go against him. I am a separate
with its own existence. However, we hope that the
negotiations are going to
continue, Mr Tsvangarai will reflect and will be
able to come out with an
agreement that will be signed by the three
principals. Right now nothing has
been signed. Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Geraldine Doogue: Okay. So can I
ask you this, which is what the world is
waiting for, that Tsvangarai is
looking for the transfer of real executive
power from the President's
office, to someone else. Now can you tell us,
from your inside knowledge,
whether that is on the table?
Arthur Mutambara: Well of course, as I said
before, we are not allowed as
part of this framework to negotiate in the
media. We are only allowed to
discuss those matters that the facilitator has
allowed us to discuss. What I
can tell you is that we are working towards a
practical and reasonable and
justifiable political settlement in our
country, and most of the reports
that are in the media are false, and we are
hoping that the Zimbabwean
political leaders will come up with an agreement.
What we must emphasise,
you think about the west that I'm parroting Mr
Mugabe's language. Let me
make it very clear, we are discussing as Africans,
we are discussing as
Zimbabweans, and will brook no interference from
patronising westerners who
make the following statements. For example,
saying to us, 'We will not
allow, we will not accept an agreement unless
it's led by a particular
leader.' Who are you to tell Africans how to run
their affairs? If the three
leaders agree on a particular position, it's not
for Britain, it's not for
Australia, it's not for America to say that we are
wrong. Who are you? How
dare you undermine our intelligence, how dare you
are so racist to the
extent that you can't guarantee us and give us the
respect, the vote of
confidence that we can make our own
Geraldine Doogue: Well, let...
Arthur Mutambara: You
are collectively stupid...
Geraldine Doogue: Let me...
Mutambara .... collective foolishness. We won't allow Australia to
agreement. It's none of your business.
Geraldine Doogue: Let me bring
Arthur Mutambara: ...of Zimbabwe.
Geraldine Doogue: Let me
bring up the issue of the...
Arthur Mutambara: I haven't finished.
Secondly, you've individuals in the
west. So you're saying to us that
Zimbabwe are not capable of making a
decision. With individuals and
governments in Europe and America imposing
sanctions while we are talking.
We must not do anything to damage your
rapprochement, the spirit of
discussion while people are talking. If
sanctions are imposed after the
failure of the talks is a different matter.
But to impose sanctions while we
are talking is a travesty of justice and
we're saying shame on you for
expressing no confidence in Morgan Tsvangarai,
shame on you for expressing
no confidence in Mugabe, shame on you for
expressing no confidence in
Mutambara. We will not brook that nonsense.
Geraldine Doogue: Is it
possible-and this is what I think some people with
some memories are
wondering-that you or Mr Tsvangarai could be walking into
a trap as Joshua
Nkomo did in the '80s, where it looked like a power-sharing
agreement and in
fact as you know...
Arthur Mutambara: I have a question. Do you think I
am stupid? When you ask
that question you think we are foolish and we are
very offended that you
think we are that stupid. We are smarter than the
Australians, we are
smarter than the Americans, we went to better schools
than most of these
leaders in America, in Britain and in Australia. I am
coming out of Oxford.
None of your prime ministers can challenge me
intellectually. So how do you
patronise me and tell me that I'm going to be
hoodwinked by Mugabe. You are
doubting my intelligence. Shame on
Geraldine Doogue: So you are quite confident that this veritable
called Robert Mugabe is not going to emerge in the same level of
before. You're quite confident of that, are you?
Mutambara: Very confident, because we know what we are doing. We are
Africans, we are capable Zimbabweans. We are very clever
Geraldine Doogue: Let me just put something else to you about a
interesting observation made by an African man actually, writing in The
African Executive, that the difficulty about African politics is that
ethnicity can take centre stage long after the tribal war has been won, and
he was suggesting that this has been a real problem for Zimbabwe and in
trying to move to a new settlement, it does bedevil a lot of your efforts,
no matter how difficult the crisis. Are you confident you can rise above
Arthur Mutambara: That is completely nonsense, which is not
even worth my
comment. Next question please.
Geraldine Doogue: So
this is not-we should not...
Arthur Mutambara: Complete nonsense, not
worth my comment. Can we have the
next question please.
Doogue: Okay, well so you're telling me by the sound of you,
we've spoken to you a couple of times, you are starting to feel
confidence that these terrible times that have afflicted your
be coming to an end?
Arthur Mutambara: We have cautious optimism. We're
not over-confident, we
have cautious optimism and we hope that all the
political leaders in our
country will put national interest before self
interest. We are very, very
keen that we are driven by what's good for the
country, what's good for the
people of Zimbabwe. Not what's good for Morgan
Tsvangarai, not what's good
for Mutambara, not what's good for Mugabe, or
what's good for the west,
what's good for America, Britain and so on-we
should be driven by the
Zimbabwean national interest and we're smart enough
to be able to extract a
reasonable deal from these negotiations, and there
will be no bilateral
arrangement. It will be a threesome
Geraldine Doogue: And so will the west not like what's going
Arthur Mutambara: It can go to hell. Who are you? Do we judge
in Australia? Do we judge your elections and your agreements
in America and
Europe? Nonsense. If Tsvangarai agrees. Who are you in
Australia to judge
and say Tsvangarai is wrong?
Geraldine Doogue: So
what in your view is the ideal outcome of this
weekend's talk, Arthur
Arthur Mutambara: The best outcome is to get an agreement
Tsvangarai, Mr Mugabe and myself say this is a good arrangement for
country. We all agree and are going to sign this document. This is the
short term answer to extricate our country from the worst situation in
it is. And I must emphasise that whatever we agree upon this weekend
week after, it's a short-term answer. It's not the long-term solution
our country. The long-term solution for our country is to get a new
people-driven democratic constitution, create a national vision, 20-,
30-year vision to make Zimbabwe a globally competitive economy, and hence
economically transforming ourselves so that in terms of the capital income
GDP, business growth, entrepreneurship, financial literacy we are one of the
top 20 countries in the world. We are on a long journey to the promised
Geraldine Doogue: Thank you very much indeed Arthur Mutambara.
Arthur Mutambara: Thank you very much.
Doogue: And Professor Arthur Mutambara...you won't forget these
negotiations, will you, coming up this weekend. Let's watch with
Maternal Deaths, the Neglected Tragedy
Inter Press Service
17 July 2008
Posted to the web 11 July
"It is a nasty experience which I
do not want to be reminded of. But if you
try to keep it to yourself it will
remain a shock for a long time. I cannot
even explain the pain I felt after
being told that I was carrying dead
bodies in my womb," said Sesedzai
Manzanga, a Harare teacher, as she
recounted giving birth to a dead set of
twins two years ago.
"But I thank you for coming to hear my story because
I am still alive and I
know that what I am going to tell you will help a lot
of women out there."
Improving maternal health is fifth among the
eight Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs). In Zimbabwe, the ruling ZANU-PF
has insisted that the figures
But Manzanga's husband
Cecil blamed the current contraceptive methods
available to Zimbabwean women
and falling health standards. He said that "it
is always painful when your
wife fails to deliver but it is better if she
survives the ordeal because
some women end up dying. At one time I got so
stressed that I had to seek
counselling from my friends.
"I thought a bad omen had been cast upon me
and that I was going to lose my
wife. I am glad she is still alive even
though she has to live with a lot of
pain and various other complications,"
said Cecil Manzanga, who was
reluctant to talk about the issue.
of the consequences is that Sesedzai Manzanga is unable to have any
children, shattering the couple's dream of having four children.
feel sorry for my husband who has always wanted a baby boy, I
think I have
to stop trying because it seems as if luck is not on my side. I
am afraid I
will end up dead," said Sesedzai Manzanga.
For a long time maternal
mortality has been a neglected tragedy as
traditional societies accepted the
lethal risks of child bearing as normal
matters worse currently is the state of paralysis that the Zimbabwean
sector is in. The costs of maternity services have been going up,
difficult for pregnant mothers to seek proper medical attention.
after Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, the government
maternity wings at all major hospitals, provided the necessary
recruited well-trained midwives. At one time the government even
maternity fees at all health institutions, except central
But over the past decade the health standards in the
country have fallen as
experienced health personnel leave the country. There
has also been a marked
reduction in fiscal allocation to the health
The cheapest maternity health services in Zimbabwe's capital
offered by the City Council clinics whose workers were on strike
at the time
of writing. Pregnant mothers registered at these clinics have
not been able
to access the necessary health care.
According to the
2005 Zimbabwe Millennium Development Goals (ZMDG) report
continues to be a major challenge in Zimbabwe with most
women dying due to
pregnancy-related complications because of limited access
delivery and post natal care.
Alice Mutema, an official at the Southern
African HIV/AIDS Information
Dissemination Service (SAfAIDS), said if
drastic action was taken to revive
the collapsing health sector, the
Zimbabwean government can at least get
closer to attaining MDG
She said: "The health sector has to get its act together and avail
funds for other projects other than HIV/AIDS. Maternal health is not
given the attention it deserves, but even if this happens, I do not
can achieve the 2015 target. But at least we can get closer to the
Minister of Health and Child Welfare David Pairenyatwa said,
maternal death figures have been showing a tremendous reduction
recent past. The figures we received recently show a reduction from
cases to about 550 cases.
"It is a pity that some people claim
that the health delivery system is
collapsing when we have such progress and
given the work we are doing with
our international health partners. We
remain hopeful that we will achieve
our MDG target despite the hardships we
are facing," Pairenyatwa said.
According to the Demographic Health Survey
(DHS) report covering the period
from 1999 to 2006, the maternal mortality
rate in Zimbabwe has decreased
from 695 deaths per every 100,000 live births
in 1999 to 555 deaths in 2006.
The DHS report is compiled by a US-based
organisation, Macro International,
in partnership with the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), the
ministry of health and the Central
Statistical Office (CSO). The technical
assistance is provided by the United
"The decline in
mortality is not a significant one and can be attributed to
things such as
the fertility rate going down as more and more people opt to
children because of the economic hardships. And I think Zimbabwe
meet the 2015 target because the risk for reversal is big, even for
MDGs that are going well," said Festo Kavishe, the United Nations
Fund (UNICEF) country representative.
"The decline is not because the
quality of services has improved but because
people are no longer having
children like they used to do in 1999, therefore
the problem remains
Botswana dismisses Herald report
Local NewsAugust 20, 2008 | By Mellisa Dube-Koketso |
The Botswana government has dismissed a report that appeared in the Zimbabwe
government’s mouthpiece, The Herald, which claimed that Botswana has changed its
stance and endorsed the Power sharing talks.
The Herald reported in its Monday edition:
Botswana’s Foreign Minister Phandu Skelemani, who represented the country at
the summit after President Seretse Khama Ian Khama boycotted in protest against
President Mugabe’s attendance, asked for more time to review the documents
presented to him by the South African leader.
“The next day when the organ met again, he said he had spent the whole night
reviewing the material and had not slept at all.
“He said his analysis of the situation was that Tsvangirai had misled them on
Zimbabwe’s political processes.
“He said they had been misinformed and were of the opinion that Tsvangirai
should accept the agreement that President Mbeki had facilitated as it was quite
reasonable. His exact words were, ‘What more does Tsvangirai expect?’ But we
cannot order him to accept the agreement, all we can do is try and persuade him
to see sense’,” Skelemani said.
However Skelemani told Botswana media in Johannesburg that Botswana voiced
its concerns on the role of Morgan Tsvangirai as prime minister and will
continue to boycott events attended by Mugabe as president.
“We explained what we thought could be Mr Tsvangirai’s role as prime minister
is one where he does not only have a job to do but the authority to run the
ministries in the envisioned government of national unity.” Skelemani said.
Skelemani further said Botswana’s boycott of the summit was successful and
has drawn the attention of the world to the problem in Zimbabwe and until an
agreement is reached between the negotiating parties, Botswana would not attend
any event where Mugabe attends in his capacity as the president of Zimbabwe.
Skelemani , further said he believed negotiations could be concluded within
“By all indications we are getting there. As soon as the parties, with the
help of Mr Mbeki sit down after arriving back home, there is no reason why they
can not reach an agreement by the end of August as not a lot remains if there is
the spirit of give and take,” he said.
Meanwhile the Movement for Democratic Change says it is not opposed to the
opening of parliament but will reject any moves by President Robert Mugabe to
appoint a cabinet before an agreement is sealed.
“If he (Mugabe) goes further and appoints a cabinet, it will be against the
letter and spirit of the MOU,” party spokesperson Tapiwa Mashakada told SABC
Tsvangirai signature is key to Zim
From The Star (SA), 19 August
Zimbabwe's negotiating parties
say they are still waiting to hear from
facilitator President Thabo Mbeki on
the way forward after this weekend's
SADC summit failed to secure a deal to
end the Zimbabwe crisis. But
authoritative sources warned that the deadlock
would not be easily resolved,
as Mbeki felt he had done all he could and now
hoped that Movement for
Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai would
change his mind and sign a
controversial deal that is on the table.
Tsvangirai has steadfastly refused
to endorse the deal because it keeps him
in a junior role to Mugabe in any
government. But Mbeki believes it is an
"important starting point", said one
source. The actual negotiations on a
way forward had not resumed yesterday,
despite reports that they were
continuing. Both negotiators from the two
formations of the MDC confirmed
that they were still waiting to hear from
negotiators, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa and Labour Minister
Goche, left for Harare with Mugabe at the end of the Southern
Development Community summit on Sunday. Welshman Ncube, chief
Arthur Mutambara's MDC faction, left for Harare yesterday. He
said he had
not heard anything from Mbeki. Tsvangirai said he was also
waiting to hear
from Mbeki. A source close to Mbeki, speaking on condition
said: "If he reconvenes the dialogue, it will only be for the
persuading Tsvangirai to sign the deal that is on the table,
which the MDC
leader has thus far refused to do. "He (Mbeki) is unlikely to
dialogue on the substantive issues because he spent almost a week
Zimbabwe and failed to get Tsvangirai and Mugabe to find common ground on
the outstanding substantive issues. There is no sign that the parties would
change their positions." A Zimbabwean source close to the dialogue said that
as far as he was concerned, the "dialogue is most probably now dead". "It's
either Tsvangirai signs, or he doesn't and nothing happens," said the
on the Republic of Botswana unwarranted!
The programme for Africa's renewal
is not a beauty contest on the catwalks
of Paris, London or New York; it's
about the interest of the ordinary
African man, woman and children in Dakar,
Abuja, Tshwane, Polokwane,
Khartoum and Harare.
- Joel Netshitenzhe,
The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (CCZ) is highly encouraged by the
being made by the government of Botswana in mounting pressure on the
administration to return to democracy.
The Republic of
Botswana, under the leadership of his Excellency Ian Khama,
strides beyond verbal solidarity, but rather has also embarked on
offensives of sending clear messages to the region that they do
recognize the illegitimate regime of President Robert Mugabe and those
In the week which has just passed, the Ian Khama
administration deported two
Zanu PF sympathizers, Caesar Zvayi, the former
features and political editor
of the state mouth peace, The Herald and
Gabriel Chaibva, former
spokesperson of the Arthur Mutambara led MDC. The
administration argues that
it will not hesitate to stand by the truth even
if the truth is going to
hurt those who have become strangers to the truth.
The Botswana President
also boycotted the just ended SADC summit which was
held in South Africa on
the grounds that they can not share the same
platform with an administration
that masterminded and effected an election
campaign which left hundreds
killed, thousands limping, many displaced and
houses torched down in acts of
It is the Coalition's
submissions that the government of Botswana, is
standing for a noble cause,
which poet Seitlhamo (Thabo) Motsapi (2002)
properly contextualized when he
said, "I could not compromise integrity by
crafting lies. I did not posses
the passion for illusion, the love of guile,
the worship of
In the Coalition's position, Botswana is playing its
critical role as a
responsible neighbour to Zimbabwe which was defined by
government as a 'sinking titanic'. If it was not for the
and conscious undertakings of its neighbors during
Zimbabwe's liberation war
against colonialism, it would have taken the
country more time to dislodge
the colonial yoke which had become an
albatross on Zimbabwe's neck.
Countries such as Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia
among others took it in their
stride to house the liberation movements
providing them with the requisite
support to conquer the
However, the ruling Zanu PF party is conveniently suffering from
lapse. The octogenarian leadership wants to redefine the facts on
in the struggle for the restoration of governance and legitimacy.
voices from neighboring countries are dismissed as borrowed
positions and ideologies bent on funning regime change in the
The government, through its public relations outfits such as The
the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Cooperation (ZBC) are stepping on each
toes in a bid to exchange blows with such countries which refused to
into the establishment's line of thought.
In the view of the
state controlled media, the state organized killings,
displacements and acts of arson committed during the run up
to the 27 June
2008 presidential runoff are seen as insignificant
developments which are
not worthy space in such media. One therefore wonders
why hectares of space
are being allocated to government's venom on the
people who took courage and
continues to speak out against such evil.
It is not in our African
culture to celebrate death, the way the deported
former political and
features editor, Caesar Zvayi lampooned and spate evil
on the death of the
charismatic Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
activist Tonderai Ndira who
was killed in a state organized brutal and
violent orchestra. Zvayi was one
of the first Zanu PF apologists to cast a
stone of condemnation, defining
Ndira as a thug. According to Zvayi, Ndira's
death brought sanity to the
country. One could think that Zvayi, did not
have the normal human
composition and the conscience of humanity which
essence he got carried away in the wave crest of the Zanu PF's virulent
campaign against MDC supporters. What he failed to contemplate in his voice
of reason was that history was archiving the names and pains which the
nation was going through for posterity. Due to such reasons, the government
of Botswana saw it befitting to serve deportation papers to such a person
who had become part and parcel of the Zanu PF campaign of subverting the
will of the people of Zimbabwe who expressed themselves clearly during the
29 March 2008 elections by voting for the opposition.
It was lethal
for the government of Botswana to expose their children to
such an imbedded
journalist. It does not make imperative sense that a person
became Zanu PF's political commissar through his lengthy and
articles in The Herald could teach students to become professional
practitioners at the University of Botswana.
Literally, Botswana took it
upon itself to act in the very same good spirit
which Mozambique, Zambia,
Tanzania among other countries took to liberate
the people of Zimbabwe from
a deep seated crisis of governance and
legitimacy. Tanzania for one, under
the leadership of the late Julius
Nyerere intervened in Uganda, to stop the
late renowned dictator of all
times Idi Amini from his cannibalistic
dictatorship of the highest
We, therefore, call for the
people of Botswana to remain resilient in their
support for the people of
Zimbabwe and to remain true to their position of
speaking out against the
illegitimate government of President Robert Mugabe
and his ruling
We also pay special attention and appreciation to President Levy
of Zambia because of his resolve and persistence in calling upon
to take a tough stance against Mugabe and his administration in a
return the tormented country to a democracy.
On the same
token, we call upon SADC, specifically his Excellency President
of South Africa and the continent at large through the African
Union (AU) to
stop coddling political monsters in its midst. It is the only
of establishing lasting stability in the continent, averting
investment in sustainable development.
buffoon tyrant was no laughing matter
By Nathan Morley 20.AUG.08
years ago the duty news editor at a major international radio station
me requesting that I file a report on the death of Idi Amin.
correspondent in Saudi Arabia had flown off for his summer holidays and
was "geographically closest" to the newly demised dictator.
newspapers, where journalists have lots of time to write and research
stories, with radio news you usually get an hour at best to prepare
If it concerns the death of a well known personality or world
there is no obituary already prepared, such as in this case, you
work very fast.
Evaluating the significance of individuals
who made a major political and
social impact is no easy task.
someone as complex as Idi Amin, summing up his life in a two-minute
report written in less than an hour is tough.
My Idi Amin report was
first broadcast at 07:30 GMT on Saturday August 16
2003 and since that
moment I have always wished that I could have expanded
on its content, as I
don't feel that listeners received the full horrific
picture of this man's
I did mention that Idi Amin presided over one of the bloodiest
in African history and that up to 400,000 people were killed
under his rule.
I also reported that more were imprisoned and
I touched upon reports that said he threw corpses to crocodiles
"talks" with the decapitated heads of his victims kept in a freezer
purpose. He is also accused of cannibalism.
rule, just like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Uganda plunged into
economic chaos as a
result of the expulsions, gross mismanagement and
In 1972 he expelled the entire Asian population of Uganda,
blaming them for
controlling the economy for their own ends. That was the
beginning of the
end for Amin and sent the economy into freefall.
1973, US Ambassador Thomas Patrick Melady described Amin's regime as
"racist, erratic and unpredictable, brutal, inept, bellicose, irrational,
ridiculous, and militaristic".
Even today, five years after his
death, we still have no idea how many
people lost their lives during this
man's brutal regime.
Amin's catalogue of crimes makes horrific reading
and I often wonder why so
many people remember just this evil man for his
bouts of lunacy, laughing
fits, Scottish kilts and general
His bizarre style of leadership seems to have somehow
eclipsed the brutal
crimes he committed, and unlike Hitler or Pol Pot, Amin
will probably be
remembered as the "funny guy who was King of
Idi Amin never faced justice; he lived out his remaining days
at a luxurious
palace in Saudi Arabia.
His name has been added to the
growing list of despots and dictators who
literally got away with murder, as
we the civilised world watched.
It is a sad comment on the international
community's inability to hold
leaders accountable for gross human rights
abuses. - Copyright © Famagusta